Shoecraft v. Bloxham was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a state officer. The case arose when the state of Florida issued an injunction against the state treasurer, William Bloxham, to prevent him from paying out certain funds. The plaintiff, Shoecraft, argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue such an injunction, as it was a matter of federal law. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue injunctions to protect the rights of its citizens, and that the injunction in this case was necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of Florida. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to issue injunctions to protect the public interest, and that the injunction in this case was necessary to protect the public interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction against the state treasurer, William Bloxham, to prevent him from paying out certain funds. The Court reasoned that the injunction was necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of Florida and the public interest.

In Shoecraft v. Bloxham, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500 and did not involve real estate or title to it. The majority opinion held that such cases were within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts, while Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had never intended for all controversies between citizens of different states involving more than $500 to be heard exclusively by federal courts; second, he noted that if such an interpretation were accepted then many important questions concerning rights arising under state laws would remain unresolved due to lack of access to any forum other than federal court. He concluded his dissent with a call for Congress "to provide some remedy" so as not to leave litigants without recourse when their claims exceed $500 but do not involve real estate or title thereto.